<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nuclear Energy by David Bodansky</title>
	<atom:link href="http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/</link>
	<description>We&#039;re all in this together.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:18:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thoughts on Fukushima &#124; Amateur Earthling</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-659</link>
		<dc:creator>Thoughts on Fukushima &#124; Amateur Earthling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-659</guid>
		<description>[...] not categorically against nuclear power.  If we can do it in a responsible, scalable way, then great.   Making 10,000-100,000 year [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not categorically against nuclear power.  If we can do it in a responsible, scalable way, then great.   Making 10,000-100,000 year [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Population Growth vs. Migration in Boulder and the World &#124; Amateur Earthling</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-337</link>
		<dc:creator>Population Growth vs. Migration in Boulder and the World &#124; Amateur Earthling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-337</guid>
		<description>[...] tend to be more educated and have more control over their reproductive choices that rural women.  I disagree with Stewart Brand&#8216;s take on nuclear power (and geoengineering), but on cities, I think he is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] tend to be more educated and have more control over their reproductive choices that rural women.  I disagree with Stewart Brand&#8216;s take on nuclear power (and geoengineering), but on cities, I think he is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Letter to David Bodansky &#124; Amateur Earthling</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>A Letter to David Bodansky &#124; Amateur Earthling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-102</guid>
		<description>[...] a PhD student in geophysics, and I just finished reading your book, Nuclear Energy.  I appreciate the trouble you went to in the book to remain effectively neutral as to whether we [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a PhD student in geophysics, and I just finished reading your book, Nuclear Energy.  I appreciate the trouble you went to in the book to remain effectively neutral as to whether we [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Thousand Splendid Power Plants &#124; Amateur Earthling</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>A Thousand Splendid Power Plants &#124; Amateur Earthling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 03:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-101</guid>
		<description>[...] and fill our mountain passes and seaside views with wind turbines.  We might choose to live with the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation and a long-term responsibility to store radioactive wastes.  We may even change what we call [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and fill our mountain passes and seaside views with wind turbines.  We might choose to live with the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation and a long-term responsibility to store radioactive wastes.  We may even change what we call [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zane Selvans</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Zane Selvans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-100</guid>
		<description>A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intellectualventures.com/TerraPower.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;technology incubator&lt;/a&gt; partially funded by Bill Gates has been working on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&amp;sc=tr10&amp;id=22114&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;traveling wave reactor design&lt;/a&gt; which is much closer to looking like the kind of nuclear power I could at least imagine supporting.  He talked quite a bit about it in his recent TED talk &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Innovating to Zero&lt;/a&gt;.

It&#039;s a novel fast-breeder reactor design in which decades or centuries worth of fertile fuel is loaded into the reactor core one time only (at construction), and it is bred in-place into fissile fuel, which is subsequently burned in a wavefront that propagates through the nuclear &quot;log&quot; over time, leaving behind highly radioactive (but short lived) fission product waste, and ultimately extracting virtually all of the available nuclear energy from the initial fuel (vs. the ~1% that we get now in the US) without expensive and proliferation-prone re-processing, and without the error-prone process of re-fueling. Ideally, the reactor could be built deep underground, and the containment vessel would also serve as the disposal container. Because of the relatively short lifetime of the waste products (decades-to-centuries, not millennia-to-eons), this is actually technically plausible.  Because of the in-ground set it and forget it construction, it&#039;s (more) plausible that political stability only at the time of construction (vs. over the centuries following construction) would be sufficient to ensure safe operation for the lifetime of the reactor.

However, this power source still has the very significant drawback that there&#039;s no way we&#039;re going to be installing tens of terawatts of it (no matter how good the design is) for at least 20+ years, and in the meantime, we&#039;re going to continue emitting a serious amount of CO2, which is unacceptable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://www.intellectualventures.com/TerraPower.aspx" rel="nofollow">technology incubator</a> partially funded by Bill Gates has been working on a <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&amp;sc=tr10&amp;id=22114" rel="nofollow">traveling wave reactor design</a> which is much closer to looking like the kind of nuclear power I could at least imagine supporting.  He talked quite a bit about it in his recent TED talk <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html" rel="nofollow">Innovating to Zero</a>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a novel fast-breeder reactor design in which decades or centuries worth of fertile fuel is loaded into the reactor core one time only (at construction), and it is bred in-place into fissile fuel, which is subsequently burned in a wavefront that propagates through the nuclear &#8220;log&#8221; over time, leaving behind highly radioactive (but short lived) fission product waste, and ultimately extracting virtually all of the available nuclear energy from the initial fuel (vs. the ~1% that we get now in the US) without expensive and proliferation-prone re-processing, and without the error-prone process of re-fueling. Ideally, the reactor could be built deep underground, and the containment vessel would also serve as the disposal container. Because of the relatively short lifetime of the waste products (decades-to-centuries, not millennia-to-eons), this is actually technically plausible.  Because of the in-ground set it and forget it construction, it&#8217;s (more) plausible that political stability only at the time of construction (vs. over the centuries following construction) would be sufficient to ensure safe operation for the lifetime of the reactor.</p>
<p>However, this power source still has the very significant drawback that there&#8217;s no way we&#8217;re going to be installing tens of terawatts of it (no matter how good the design is) for at least 20+ years, and in the meantime, we&#8217;re going to continue emitting a serious amount of CO2, which is unacceptable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zane Selvans</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Zane Selvans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-99</guid>
		<description>Leaving aside the question of whether the USSR, (or Ukraine, or Russia) really qualified as a third world country in 1986 (I might agree in some ways, but definitely not in others), part of my point is that if we are going to get the atmosphere back down to &lt;a href=&quot;http://350.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;350 ppm CO2&lt;/a&gt;, or even prevent it from getting above 450 ppm, we are going to have to deploy some kind of carbon free power on a massive scale, both here &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; in all the &quot;third world&quot; countries.  India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Ukraine, Iran, etc.  If you don&#039;t think nuclear is safe in such countries on a massive scale, then it&#039;s not a solution.

Additionally, much though we like to pretend it isn&#039;t possible, we, and any number of other great nations are entirely capable of descending into chaos.  In the fullness of time there is nothing that fundamentally rules out another Chinese civil war.  Or another Russian civil war.  Or a second Mexican revolution.  Or another American civil war.  In such a situation a desert valley filled with solar panels or mirrors, or a continental shelf carpeted with offshore wind turbines does not become the same kind of liability that a nuclear power stations does.

We are not in control.  Nobody ever really runs the show for long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving aside the question of whether the USSR, (or Ukraine, or Russia) really qualified as a third world country in 1986 (I might agree in some ways, but definitely not in others), part of my point is that if we are going to get the atmosphere back down to <a href="http://350.org" rel="nofollow">350 ppm CO2</a>, or even prevent it from getting above 450 ppm, we are going to have to deploy some kind of carbon free power on a massive scale, both here <em>and</em> in all the &#8220;third world&#8221; countries.  India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Ukraine, Iran, etc.  If you don&#8217;t think nuclear is safe in such countries on a massive scale, then it&#8217;s not a solution.</p>
<p>Additionally, much though we like to pretend it isn&#8217;t possible, we, and any number of other great nations are entirely capable of descending into chaos.  In the fullness of time there is nothing that fundamentally rules out another Chinese civil war.  Or another Russian civil war.  Or a second Mexican revolution.  Or another American civil war.  In such a situation a desert valley filled with solar panels or mirrors, or a continental shelf carpeted with offshore wind turbines does not become the same kind of liability that a nuclear power stations does.</p>
<p>We are not in control.  Nobody ever really runs the show for long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zane Selvans</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/07/02/nuclear-energy-by-david-bodansky/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Zane Selvans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1307#comment-98</guid>
		<description>I made a comment over on &lt;a href=&quot;http://fivepercent.us/2009/06/27/explain-cap-and-trade-how-aces-will-work/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tom Harrison&#039;s 5% blog&lt;/a&gt; in response to someone&#039;s suggestion that the only economical carbon free power source we have is nuclear, and pointed the author at this post.  She responded:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Thank you for the information Zane. I read it, but I don’t agree. There hasn’t been a nuclear accident in this country since 1979, no one died, and Chernobyl was a third world country’s incompetence. I don’t agree about the costs at all, but, full disclosure, my husband is a nuclear engineer. Our planet is very important but it is not necessary to destroy our standard of living to rush into something so we can be the lead nation when no one is following as the recent G-8 summit demonstrated. The climate bill is so botched by special interests, I find it to be a mess as I read it.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I made a comment over on <a href="http://fivepercent.us/2009/06/27/explain-cap-and-trade-how-aces-will-work/" rel="nofollow">Tom Harrison&#8217;s 5% blog</a> in response to someone&#8217;s suggestion that the only economical carbon free power source we have is nuclear, and pointed the author at this post.  She responded:</p>
<blockquote><p>Thank you for the information Zane. I read it, but I don’t agree. There hasn’t been a nuclear accident in this country since 1979, no one died, and Chernobyl was a third world country’s incompetence. I don’t agree about the costs at all, but, full disclosure, my husband is a nuclear engineer. Our planet is very important but it is not necessary to destroy our standard of living to rush into something so we can be the lead nation when no one is following as the recent G-8 summit demonstrated. The climate bill is so botched by special interests, I find it to be a mess as I read it.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

